post_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effect (creating a post), explains scheduling semantics (default queue, immediate publish, next in queue, custom schedule), and hints at the dueAt dependency. It does not mention permission requirements or reversibility, but for a create operation the core behaviors are well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence packs the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the central action and the most complex decision (scheduling modes), while the schema fully documents the remaining optional parameters like media, tags, and scheduling_type. The due_at dependency for customScheduled is partially indicated in the description and fully specified in the schema. For a tool with this parameter count and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by expanding the mode enum values, but it mostly restates what the schema provides. It adds no value for channel_id, text, media URLs, tags, or scheduling_type. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Create a new post on a channel', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The second sentence further clarifies scheduling behavior, which differentiates this from sibling read/list tools like posts_list and post_get. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology of the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on how to use the mode parameter, enumerating all four scheduling choices with their intended effects. This is valuable context for selecting the correct behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool (e.g., versus idea_create), leaving some usage inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.